Hacker News Reader

Comment by rtrdea | Hacker News Reader

Are you saying Dai and USDC are frauds or are you specifically referring to Tether?

All of the above should be prosecuted if it can be shown that they are not fully backed or cannot be fully redeemed as claimed.

https://breakermag.com/tether-now-admits-its-not-fully-backe...

My understanding is that it is publicly verifiable that Dai is over-collateralized , and positions can be closed or whatever it is called without requiring any organization to do anything.

I don’t know what smaller details there might be about the oracle information or other outside input things there are that people might complain about, but my impression is that it is a sound setup? The reason I say “impression” is because I’m not familiar with the details. I think all the details are publicly verifiable though.

The fact that you said that about DAI shows you don't know enough about the ecosystem and have just read articles about tether then drawn a conclusion about every single stablecoin

I drew no conclusion. I said, "if it can be shown ...".

It's true that I haven't studied DAI --- because I haven't felt any need to. I know how to buy currency that is every bit as stable as DAI and much more widely accepted and easily redeemable --- just buy USD.

Have you studied DAI? Are you sure that their algorithmic trading works the way they claim it does? How did you verify this?

Most "stablecoins" are built on trust of some sort at some level. Until someone audits them, you really have no idea if that trust is warranted.

Would an attack on stablecoins indirectly cause the value of Bitcoin to go down? The government could even turn itself into the good guy by letting people cash out at a favorable rate once they go bust.

https://www.fxstreet.com/cryptocurrencies/news/if-tether-fal...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com